All of America is aware of the ongoing financial problems within the Social
Security Administration and how politicians claim funds for SSA will be gone by
2030. But, the majority of Americans are unaware of the Social Security
Administration's Appeals process for those people who apply for disability
benefits and are denied them. The government entity that oversees an appeal of such a denial is known as the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). ODAR functions through 169 hearing offices located across the US.

Each appeal is
brought in the ODAR hearing office with jurisdiction in front of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who examines medical
evidence in support of the claimant's appeal. The ALJ then makes a determination
based on the information on hand within the case file, expert witnesses, and supplemental arguments of the
lawyers that represent the claimant. Over the past year, evidence surfaced
at the Huntington, West Virginia, ODAR office that shows the ODAR system is not
working as intended: enough so that Congress is investigating that office for
numerous improprieties, some potentially felonious, including alleged collusion between at least one former ALJ
and an attorney in a case-fixing scandal that awarded 98% of that attorney's cases in the claimant's favor. Claimants' attorneys frequently work for contingency fees in the types of cases heard before the ODAR courts.

It now appears that the ongoing scandal within the Huntington SSA
Appeals office overshadowed problems in another West Virginia ODAR
office. According to one of our sources inside the Huntington office,
their media scandal and congressional investigation kept the heat off
serious issues being exposed in the ODAR office of Charleston, West Virginia--problems that
include reports of management mishandling evidence; failure to mail out
ALJ decisions timely, thereby denying futher appeal; and condoning questionable
decisions by two judges.

With the national media attention focusing on Huntington ALJ David
Daugherty's high appeal awards and alleged case-fixing ties with
attorney Eric Conn, upper management in Charleston had the opportunity
to fix their potential scandal without anyone finding out. Until now
anyway. At first, most people felt that the problems in the Huntington
office were isolated. However, according to that inside source and available records, SSA mismanagement extends also to Charleston, which had issues
just as damaging to the SSA if found out.

Over a 3-year period of time, hundreds of ALJ case decisions were never
mailed out until the 60-day time limit for claimants to appeal was about
to expire. That in itself is a serious issue because once that
deadline is up, a claimant may never be able to re-address their case
again. SSA "recommends" that all decisions be mailed within one day of
being prepared. And, if that were not trouble enough, management
also knew that stacks of mail containing doctors reports or other evidence relevant to pending cases that ALJ's
never saw before making some of their decisions on those cases were routinely left unopened in the office .

This unrevealed evidence, if timely made available, may have been the deciding
factor to grant or deny a claim. The combination of both problems: that of the ALJ
decisions not being mailed out timely, and the unopened mail
containing evidence, caused the appeal
process to be defective. Eventually all of the mail was opened and
placed into files, but once a case is decided and closed, there is little to no reason for a judge to re-open or change a previous
decision.

One excuse given was that there was a lack of adequate staffing in the
office. Bottom line, there is no excuse for either problem to have
occurred. And there is no way to know the number of people who were
denied equal access to the courts because of what happened. Reportedly,
the problems have now been corrected, partly because of electronic
filings and adequate staffing. During this same time period, Hearing Officer Chief Administrator Law Judge (HOCAL)
Theodore Burock and Office Supervisor Teresa Bowen were transferred and
new upper management was brought in. Correspondence we obtained between employees
in both offices verifies the problems existed.

One ALJ's High Number Of Decisions And Another's Low Rate Of Denials

As with the Huntington SSA scandal that instigated congressional
hearings over higher than normal
ALJ caseload decisions and/or lower than normal denial ratios, we found two
ALJ's in Charleston whose statistics raise the same questions if not
more. How did one judge manage to decide twice the number of cases as
his counterparts while another averaged only a 1.5% denial rate in a 4
year consecutive period?

According to online reports linked below from 2005 to 2008, Charleston ALJ Harry Taylor
decided twice the number of cases compared to his counterpart judges.
And, many of his decisions were made without ever conducting hearings.
Taylor decided a total of 4,091 cases over the 4-year consecutive time
period noted above. Out of that, he only denied 173 of those appeals or
4.25%. Now, in the most recent published ALJ Disposition Data from
October 1, 2011 to March 30, 2012 (6 months) Taylor has already decided
twice the caseload as any other Charleston ALJ. He has rendered 428
decisions and denied 34 or 8%.

Reportedly, like former ALJ Daugherty's SSA high approval ratings now
being questioned, Charleston management allegedly condoned Taylor's high
caseload decisions because his totals made the overall office numbers
look good. Also, after the Huntington SSA scandal was exposed in 2011,
Taylor was reportedly instructed to hold a minimum of 40 hearings each
month.

Then there is the 1.5% denial ratios by ALJ Toby Buel for the
same 4 year time period. He decided a total of 1,535 cases. Out of that,
he only denied 23 of those appeals. Now, in the latest published ALJ
Disposition Data from October 1, 2011 to March 30, 2012 (6 months) Buel
has rendered 333 decisions and denied 60 or 18%. Judge Buel is now
listed as working from the Huntington WV Office.

Remaining Charleston ALJ Judges Caseloads From 2005 to 2008

1. Judge Valerie Bawolek

Bawolek decided a total of 1,799 cases over the 4-year consecutive time
period. Out of that, she denied 369 of those appeals or 18.5%. In the
latest published ALJ Disposition Data from October 1, 2011 to March 30,
2012 (6 months) Bawolek has rendered 200 decisions and has denied 47 or
23%.

2. Theodore Burock

Burock decided a total of 1,877 cases over the 4-year consecutive time
period. Out of that, he denied 532 of those appeals or 25.5%. In the
latest published ALJ Disposition Data from October 1, 2011 to March 30,
2012 (6 months) Burock rendered 166 decisions and has denied 76 or 46%.
Judge Burock is now assigned to the Harrisburg PA Office.

3. Ronald Chapman

Chapman decided a total of 2008 cases over the 4-year consecutive time
period. Out of that, he denied 104 of those appeals or 5%. There are no
recent records for Judge Chapman.

4. Jon K Johnson

Johnson decided a total of 1,505 cases over the 4-year consecutive time
period. Out of that, he denied 152 of those appeals or 10.1%. Now, in
the latest published ALJ Disposition Data from October 1, 2011 to March
30, 2012 (6 months) Johnson has rendered 221 decisions and denied 45 or
20%.

5. James P. Toschi

Toschi decided a total of 1,337 cases over the 4-year consecutive time
period. Out of that, he denied 257 of those appeals or 19%. Now, in the
latest published ALJ Disposition Data from October 1, 2011 to March 30,
2012 (6 months) Toschi has rendered 259 decisions and denied 72 or 28%.

In Closing

If there is any silver lining in the Huntington SSA Appeals Office
scandal, it would be a wake up call to other offices across the country
to get their departments up to standards. SSA Commissioner Michael
Astrue stated back in February that there is "no silver bullet" that is
going to fix all of the problems the Social Security Administration is
facing. He admits that job related stress, higher workloads and pay
issues equal an unhappy workforce.

"I know that fiscal shortfalls create stress in our offices, especially
when there are fewer of you to handle more work. Our inability to timely
handle work makes the public more frustrated, and you endure that
frustration. I also know that outcomes like pay freezes may cause you to
question your career choice."

But, there is no excuse for office managers to knowingly let mail sit
around "unopened" that contains doctor's reports and other evidence that
could be the silver bullet that either determines or denies a claimant's
appeal. Nor is there any excuse for hundreds of ALJ decisions to have
been sent out late or possibly not at all. Its good that they finally
fixed the problems, but its sad for those who were denied access to the
courts because of these manager's negligence in the performance of their duties.

Its possible that the Office Of Inspector General (OIG) is already
investigating the problems in Charleston, including the high caseload
decisions of Judge Taylor and the very low denial rates of Judge Buel from
2005 to 2008. Ironically, since the Huntington scandal broke, statistics
for the judges who were in the Charleston office from 2005 to 2008, now
have decision stats more in line with other offices in their regions.

By and large, ALJ hearings have the highest
approval rate, with about two thirds of all disability applicants
winning their disability claims. These are national averages, which
means there are some states or regions that have much lower disability
claim approval rates while others have higher approval rates

The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) has over 1600
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) that conduct hearings and issue
decisions for the Social Security Administration (SSA). There are over
160 ODAR hearing offices in the country.

I am the publisher of an online news website and blog covering local, state and national news since 2007. Author of 4 cold-case murder books in the "Who Killed?" series published by Rooftop Publishing Company. Retired from mainstream media in 2007 (more...)